Looks good to me.
Best,
Martin
On Feb 7, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Omprakash Gnawali wrote:
> Thanks Martin for your comments. I think we are down to one final item
> in our discussion.
>> ...
>> Section 2.3:
>>>>>> One popular way to define the
>>>> bi-directional link quality between a node pair (A,B) as the
>>>> probability that a packet transmitted by A will be successfully
>>>> received and acknowledged by B.
>>>> Rewrite: Either insert "is" after "way" or replace "as" by "is" or
>> something.
>>>>>> This approach computes the
>>>> bi-directional link quality of a node pair (A,B) as the product
>>>> of the
>>>> link quality of (A,B) and (B,A).
>>>> Suggest to rewrite as: "According to this definition, the link
>> quality is
>> computed as ..."
>> However, the step from the definition of link quality as the
>> "roundtrip"
>> success
>> probability to the product of the link qualities is not correct.
>> As I said earlier, this would only hold if the successes of the two
>> transmissions were independent, and in most cases they are not. So
>> the
>> product
>> is a pessimistic metric, and I'd prefer to use the minimum of the two
>> probabilities.
>> At least a remark should be included that taking the product is
>> only valid
>> assuming
>> independence (and does not follow directly from the definition
>> above); and
>> perhaps a scenario can be included where independence would be
>> justified
>> (I can't think if any except some far-fetched ones such as high
>> mobility).
>> I have shortened the text:
> "
> One popular way to define the
> bi-directional link quality between a node pair (A,B) as the
> probability that a packet transmitted by A will be successfully
> received and acknowledged by B. This approach computes the
> bi-directional link quality of a node pair (A,B) as the product of the
> link quality of (A,B) and (B,A).
> "
>> to
>> "Routing protocols often
> compute the bi-directional link quality of a node pair (A,B) as a
> function (product, min, etc.) of the link quality of (A,B) and (B,A).
> "
>> so that we limit ourselves to observations on how routing protocols
> use the information that is exchanged using this protocol. What do you
> think?
>> - om_p